For how many people was the "traditional" media's, and the "establishment's" horror at Trump, was read by many as a sign that he was opposing their ills in a systematic way.

I think you may find, with digging, that on most things, it is not so. That he either ignored or entrenched most of the problems of this country, and just made enough noise to rouse the ire of the typical gatekeepers of what is "normal".

Take airstrikes and drone strikes. Trump never displayed any coherent positions on these issues. And he showed cavalier disregard for the lives of American soldiers, let alone civilians, who he said he was fine bombing if they were related to terrorists.

Nor did he have a considered strategy for expanding the US footprint in the Middle East. And he made scattershot efforts to pull back, but never with any kind of consistent design.

It still boggles my mind that rather than support a politician who had clear rules about American use of force (and they exist, in both parties), a large number of Americans preferred a guy who couldn't complete a coherent paragraph of thoughts on the subject. You get what you ask for, I guess.

But it does seem Biden's act is getting pushback from Congress, finally. They're planning to take way the use of force authorizations for Iraq that all of the past 3 presidents have overused to launch attacks all over the Middle East. And wonder of wonders, it even has bipartisan backing.

It's a small step, but at least its in the right direction.